On the conference call last night I was asked to create one email on LATIN SMALL LETTER U WITH DOT BELOW and friends. In this email three code points are considered: * U+045F CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER DZHE * U+1EF1 LATIN SMALL LETTER U WITH HORN AND DOT BELOW * U+1EE5 LATIN SMALL LETTER U WITH DOT BELOW 1. In the Latin-Cyrillic variant material, a comparison is done between U+045F and U+1EF1. As I have noted U+1EE5 is even closer to U+045F, but no comparison has been done between U+045F and U+1EE5, which I now propose should be done. 2. If the workgroup decides that both comparisons should result in between-script variant pairs, then as a consequence U+1EE5 and U+1EF1 must constitute a within-script variant pair. First displayed as text in the mail: 1EF1 045F 1EE5 Times: ự џ ụ Helvetica: ự џ ụ Courier new: ự џ ụ Here as a picture: [cid:image001.png@01D42803.2604AAC0] Yours, Mats --- Mats Dufberg DNS Specialist, IIS Mobile: +46 73 065 3899 https://www.iis.se/en/ -----Original Message----- From: Latingp <latingp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of ICANN Latin GP <latingp@icann.org> Reply-To: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka@verisign.com> Date: Monday, 30 July 2018 at 04:57 To: "Michael.Bauland@knipp.de" <Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>, ICANN Latin GP <latingp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Latingp] Latin-Cyrillic cross-script analysis Latin GP, Based on Michael's and Bill's input I have resolved all the pending cases. These are highlighted as <green>include</green> or <red>excluded</red> in each of the sets. Review the comments for context as well. Please review the revised doc and provide any other comments you may have. Thanks, Dennis On 7/27/18, 11:30 AM, "Latingp on behalf of Michael Bauland" <latingp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> wrote: Hi all, On 26.07.2018 21:12, Bill Jouris wrote: > I have reviewed these. In several cases, I believe it is possible to > resolve the issue using the same principle: > When both inspectors have the same rating for the highest ranked font, > and the only difference is between fonts, there seems no reason to look > further. Just take the agreed highest rating (for example 2) and move on. I agree with Bill. We decided to look at several fonts in order to find more cases for possible variants (not to find less cases). Therefore it makes sense to always take the rating from the highest ranked font. In case both inspectors agree, there is nothing more to do. > I also noticed a couple of cases where the first inspector had a rating > of 5 (i.e. no candidate found) while the second inspector had something > else. Perhaps the first inspector could go back and consider the > candidate which, apparently, arose after his initial inspection. Even > if that results in a rating of 4 (different), it would at least give us > someplace to start discussion. Done. Those were my cases and I changed my original 5 to the rating referring to the newly found candidate. Furthermore I added my vote to the occasions were first and second inspector disagreed (and Bill's suggestion from above does not work). If the others could do the same, we could probably apply some majority vote. Have a nice weekend Michael -- ____________________________________________________________________ | | | knipp | Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH ------- Technologiepark Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9 44227 Dortmund Germany Dipl.-Informatiker Fon: +49 231 9703-0 Fax: +49 231 9703-200 Dr. Michael Bauland SIP: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de Software Development E-mail: Michael.Bauland@knipp.de Register Court: Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 13728 Chief Executive Officers: Dietmar Knipp, Elmar Knipp _______________________________________________ Latingp mailing list Latingp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp _______________________________________________ Latingp mailing list Latingp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp